Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 50210/99

As to the question whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society", the Government argued that - relying on the Court's findings in the case of Golder v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, p. 21, § 45) where it accepted that the "necessity" for interference of the rights of a convicted prisoner under Article 8 of the Convention must be appreciated having regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and that the "prevention of disorder of crime" may justify wider measures of interference in the case of such a prisoner than in that of a person at liberty - the authorities must have some room to manoeuvre to prevent convicted detainees in a penitentiary from either becoming involved in plotting escapes or from continuing to make systematic threats against individuals and to plot serious life-threatening criminal offences.

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 50210/99

Relying on the Court's findings in the case of Malone v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, p. 33, § 69), the Government argued that the relevant statutory basis for intercepting communications may consist inter alia of a "settled administrative practice".

Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 50210/99

While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, §§ 45 and 46, and, for a more recent example in a different context, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 34).